US Politically Recognizes Kurdish-led Administration

A US military vehicle near an oil well in northeastern Syria. AFP file photo
A US military vehicle near an oil well in northeastern Syria. AFP file photo
TT
20

US Politically Recognizes Kurdish-led Administration

A US military vehicle near an oil well in northeastern Syria. AFP file photo
A US military vehicle near an oil well in northeastern Syria. AFP file photo

US President Donald Trump’s approval for an American company to sign an agreement with the head of the Syrian Democratic Forces on oil investment in northeast Syria is a political step for “recognition” of a Kurdish self-administration in the region, a Syrian Kurdish official said.

The official considered that the US move would contribute to encouraging the Syrian Kurdish-controlled city of Qamishli to move further away from Damascus.

“The agreement has a huge political significance,” he said, considering it as a “recognition” of the Kurdish administration.

“It also limits concerns on a possible surprise US pullout from east of the Euphrates,” the official added.

Republican US Senator Lindsey Graham told the Senate on Thursday in the presence of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that SDF General Commander Mazloum Abdi informed him during a phone conversation that the SDF has signed the deal with the American oil company.

In response, Pompeo noted that “the deal took a little longer than we had hoped.”

“We are now in implementation,” he said.

Asharq Al-Awsat learned that Abdi confirmed to Graham that the deal was made by Delta Crescent Energy LLC.

Graham had played a huge role in convincing Trump to keep US troops east of the Euphrates after he announced a partial troop withdrawal from Syria last year.

Trump said in October that a small number of US troops would remain in the area of Syria “where they have the oil,” a reference to oilfields in the Kurdish-controlled region.

“Oil is secured,” he said.

A few days later, Defense Secretary Mark Esper said: “We are now taking some actions... to strengthen our position at Deir Ezzor, to ensure that we can deny ISIS access to the oil fields.”

Under the new oil deal with the SDF, the United States was going to supply two refineries to the area of the Euphrates to produce around 20,000 barrels of oil per day and satisfy part of the oil-rich region’s needs.

Currently Syria produces around 60,000 bpd. Before the war that erupted in 2011, the country produced 360,000 bpd.

The US has expressed determination to stop both Damascus and Moscow from controlling oil reserves in northeastern Syria.

About 300 men working for a Kremlin-linked Russian private military firm were killed in US airstrikes in February 2018 near the Syrian town of Khasham.

"I can promise you that the 300 Russians who were in Syria and who took action that threatened America who are no longer on this planet understand that, too," Pompeo told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday.

Analysts believe that the Trump administration wants to use the oil deal in addition to its latest sanctions on the Syrian regime to pressure Damascus and Moscow to accept several conditions, including “stopping support for terrorism and cutting military ties with Iran and its militias.”

Other conditions include stopping aggression on neighboring countries, giving up weapons of mass destruction, implementing UN Security Council Resolution 2254 to allow for the voluntary return of Syrian refugees and holding accountable those responsible for war crimes.

The new oil agreement is expected to anger Turkey, which rejects the formation of a Kurdish entity in northern Syria. Damascus is also expected to express reservations on the deal because it would worsen its economic crisis and would give Kurds the upper hand in any negotiations between them and the Assad regime.



Career Diplomat Becomes the Face of Trump’s ‘America First’ Agenda at the UN

US Ambassador to the United Nations, Dorothy Shea (C), addresses a UN Security Council meeting called following a recent missile strike by Russia on a residential area in Ukraine, at the United Nations headquarters in New York, New York, USA, 08 April 2025. (EPA)
US Ambassador to the United Nations, Dorothy Shea (C), addresses a UN Security Council meeting called following a recent missile strike by Russia on a residential area in Ukraine, at the United Nations headquarters in New York, New York, USA, 08 April 2025. (EPA)
TT
20

Career Diplomat Becomes the Face of Trump’s ‘America First’ Agenda at the UN

US Ambassador to the United Nations, Dorothy Shea (C), addresses a UN Security Council meeting called following a recent missile strike by Russia on a residential area in Ukraine, at the United Nations headquarters in New York, New York, USA, 08 April 2025. (EPA)
US Ambassador to the United Nations, Dorothy Shea (C), addresses a UN Security Council meeting called following a recent missile strike by Russia on a residential area in Ukraine, at the United Nations headquarters in New York, New York, USA, 08 April 2025. (EPA)

The highest-ranking US representative now at the United Nations told Congress two years ago that Russia's invasion of Ukraine was "unprovoked" and "unjustified," urging UN members to condemn Moscow’s aggression and demand an end to the war.

In February, it was the same career diplomat, Dorothy Shea, who voiced the Trump administration's extraordinary decision to split with European allies and refuse to back a UN resolution blaming Russia for its invasion on the third anniversary of the war.

While it is typical for diplomats to stay on as US presidents — and their political parties — change, Shea's interim role has unexpectedly made her a face of the stunning US transition on the world stage, with President Donald Trump's "America First" approach increasingly upending the post-World War II international order.

Shea will be in place longer than expected after Trump's unusual decision last month to withdraw his nominee for UN ambassador, Rep. Elise Stefanik, from consideration because of a slim Republican House majority.

"I would say (Shea’s) position is unique. It is probably particularly unique in that because of the extraordinary change, not just from one administration to another, but really an era of US foreign policy, even when there were nuanced differences," said Phillip Reeker, the former acting assistant secretary of state for Europe. "The change in the vote that took place at the UN on the Russia-Ukraine war was really an inflection point in US policy."

A UN vote changes US messaging on Ukraine

On Feb. 24, the US joined Russia in voting against a European-backed Ukrainian resolution demanding an immediate withdrawal of Moscow's forces. A dueling US resolution noted "the tragic loss of life" and called for "a swift end to the conflict," but it didn't mention Moscow’s aggression as the Trump administration opened negotiations with Russia on a ceasefire.

"Continuing to engage in rhetorical rivalries in New York may make diplomats feel vindicated, but it will not save souls on the battlefield," Shea, 59, said at the time. "Let us prove to ourselves and to our citizens that we can come together and agree on the most basic principles. Let us show one another that the bold vision of peace that once pulled us out of hell can prevail."

The message was a shocking retreat for the US in the 193-member UN General Assembly, whose resolutions are not legally binding but are seen as a barometer of world opinion. It also reinforced the fears of some allies about what a second Trump presidency could mean for longstanding transatlantic partnerships — and whether the US could remain a bulwark against aggressors like Russia.

For Shea, it was another day at work. She has spent the last 30-plus years serving as a diplomat under both Republican and Democratic presidents — from Bill Clinton to Trump — carrying out their policies even if they were a departure from longstanding US positions.

"I don’t know what her personal views are on things. But administrations change, policies change. And your job as a diplomat is to advocate for those policies," said a former colleague and deputy US ambassador, Robert Wood, who recently retired.

The US mission to the UN declined to comment. The State Department did not immediately respond to an Associated Press request for comment.

The roots of a diplomat

Shea's work has included stints in South Africa, where she witnessed Nelson Mandela become the first democratically elected president, and Israel, where she worked on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Shea grew up in the suburbs of Washington — her father a World War II veteran and her mother active in the local Japanese American friendship society. The experience of Japanese exchange students staying with her family over several summers and wanting to understand world events propelled her into international relations at the University of Virginia. After graduation, she scored a job offer with the US Foreign Service.

She worked her way up and in 2019 was tapped to be Trump's ambassador to Lebanon, where the soft-spoken diplomat made headlines for her criticism of the Hezbollah group. A Lebanese judge banned local and foreign media outlets from interviewing Shea for a year, saying her criticism of Hezbollah was seditious and a threat to social peace.

In 2023, Biden nominated Shea to become No. 2 at the UN.

The top US role at the UN — for now

It is unclear when Shea will hand off to a Senate-confirmed political appointee. Stefanik went through a confirmation hearing, but her nomination was pulled last month because her vote to advance Trump's agenda remains crucial to Republicans in the House. The GOP congresswoman was the fourth Trump nominee not to make it through the confirmation process.

Trump has made no mention of whom he would nominate to replace Stefanik and fill his last remaining Cabinet seat. Until then, Shea is at the helm at a critical moment for US foreign policy, selling big changes to dealing with both allies and adversaries and defending the administration's slashing of foreign assistance.

The White House recently proposed additional drastic cuts to the State Department, which would include eliminating funding for nearly all international organizations, such as the UN.

The proposal is highly preliminary but reflects the administration's isolationist view, which, along with funding uncertainties, poses a major challenge to the mandate and work of the UN.